Shubh Aagman Hotels Llp Through Its Parnter Shir J.S. Agarwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24827
1 WP-2819-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 2819 of 2026
SHUBH AAGMAN HOTELS LLP THROUGH ITS PARNTER SHIR J.S.
AGARWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saaransh Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Drishti Rawal - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-
"7.1 That, impugned action of the respondent no. 2 and respondent
no. 3 may kindly be quashed and to remove the lien and restore
petitioner’s Axis Bank Current Account (Shalimar Township
Branch) account bearing no.:922020044730397, Customer ID:
943568611, IFSC Code: UTIB0004881, MICR Code : 452211035;
7.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may consider
necessary in the interest of justice may also be granted in favour of
the petitioner."
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a proprietary
firm, engaged in Hospitality (Hotel) business under the name and style of
M/s Shubh Aagman Hotels LLP and its account at Axis Bank has been
freezed at the instance of respondent No.2, Balihongal Police Station,
Karnataka as has been informed to the petitioner by the Bank. The account
of the petitioner has been freeezed can also be demonstrated by the cheque,
which was deposited by the petitioner, on which the Bank authorities have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
17:40:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24827
2 WP-2819-2026
endorsed that the account has been freezed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the
information received, there is some transaction by the petitioner firm with
one Umesh Irayya Goudar, which, according to the respondent No.2 is of
dubious nature, which has led to freezing of the petitioner’s bank account.
4. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed
in an identical case, in the case of Gautam Bhandari and Others Vs. State
Bank of India and Others passed in W.P. No.30822/2024 dated 25.10.2024
wherein also, in an identical case, this Court had granted a relief to the
petitioner that the amount which is disputed may be kept in a fixed deposit
by the bank, with further direction that the competent Judicial Magistrate
shall proceed in accordance with law under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. Thus, it is
submitted that the petitioner also agrees that the amount relating to
questionable transaction may be kept in a fixed deposit, and the petitioner
may be allowed to operate his account.
5. Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the
documents filed on record, this Court finds the prayer reasonable and
innocuous, as no prejudice would be caused either to the Bank or to the
respondent No.2, if the disputed amount is kept in fixed deposits, as has been
ordered by this Court in the case of Gautam Bhandari (Supra). Thus
maintaining the parity, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition as
well.
6. So far as the order passed by this Court in the case of Gautam
Bhandari (Supra) is concerned, the same reads as under:

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
17:40:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24827
3 WP-2819-2026
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore most humbly pray ed by the petitioner that by a suitable writ order
or direction this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: -

a) This petition may kindly be allowed with cost.
b) To direct the Respondent No. 6 to 10 thereby directing Respondents
to remove the hold/freeze on the Bank account of petitioners.
c) Issue such other orders, writ, and direction as this Hon’ble court
deems fit in the interest of justice in favour of petitioner."

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their accounts have been freezed on
account of some fraudulent activity.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are medical students,
studying in fourth semester in Aurobindo College, Indore and were also trading in
Crypto currency, in which the aforesaid transactions were made in their accounts. It
is submitted that the petitioners may be allowed to operate their accounts, as the
disputed entries are already on hold.
4. Counsel for the respondent No.1/ SBI has submitted that no case for interference
is made out, however, it is not denied that on earlier occasions, this Court had
passed various orders and one such order was passed in the case of Malcolm
Murayis and Others Vs. State Bank of India and Others, W.P. No.1100/2024 dated
26.04.2024.
5. Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the documents filed
on record, it is found that so far as the order passed in the case of Malcolm Murayis
(Supra) is concerned, it has been observed as under:-
“8] In compliance of the aforesaid order, State Bank of India has
already sent emails to the concerned cyber crime cell of various police
stations but except the cyber crime cell of Banglore, Karnataka /
respondent No.4 in connected petition W.P. No.1185/2024, no other
police station has taken trouble to respond to the emails sent to them,
which also demonstrates the poor functioning and irresponsible
approach of the said cyber crime cells of various States as on one hand
they had sent emails to the various banks to freeze certain accounts,
and on the other hand they are not willing to respond to the emails sent
to them.
9] In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of this
petition with a direction to the respondents/Bank to keep the disputed
amount as informed to them by various cyber crime agencies, in fixed
deposits, which shall be allowed to be liquidated only after the orders
are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months’
time as it is expected from the cybercrime police to proceed in
accordance with law under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., or any other law on
which they are relying upon, failing which the amount so kept in FDs
may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioners under
intimation to the cybercrime agencies.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

6. On due consideration of the reliefs sought by the petitioners, as also the aforesaid
order, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition with a direction to the
respondents/Bank to keep the disputed amount as informed to them by various cyber
crime agencies, in fixed deposits, which shall be allowed to be liquidated only after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
17:40:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24827
4 WP-2819-2026
the orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months’ time
as it is expected from the cybercrime police to proceed in accordance with law under
Section 102 of Cr.P.C., or any other law on which they are relying upon, failing
which the amount so kept in FDs may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the
petitioners under intimation to the cybercrime agencies.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.


7. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed with a direction to
the respondent No.3/Bank to keep the disputed amount as informed to them
by cybercrime agency (the respondent no.2), in a fixed deposit, which shall
be allowed to be liquidated only after the order is passed by the competent
Judicial Magistrate within three months’ time as it is expected from the
Cybercrime Police to proceed in accordance with law under Section 102 of
Cr.P.C., or any other law on which they are relying upon, failing which the
amount so kept in FDs may also be allowed to be withdrawn by the
petitioner under intimation to the Cybercrime agency.
8. It is open for the petitioner to pray for closure of the account which
may be considered by the bank in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
jyoti

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
17:40:08